Radiation from Japan found in B.C. may raise health concerns-Are salmon safe to eat?

[Whole in the Water]

Makes one wonder will our salmon be safe to eat in the times ahead?

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b...und-in-b-c-may-raise-health-concerns-1.894306

 

[trophywife]

Put on your tinfoil hat and go catch em..!!

 

[Foxsea]

SFU nuclear scientist Kris Starosta runs a lab that tests samples provided by members of the public. The lab tests debris from the waters off the B.C. coast, seaweed and fish. Starosta says people need to remember that there is natural radiation already present in the water, so fish and other organisms will contain some radiation.
“Everything we are seeing is due to the natural sources,” he says.

Starosta says those levels of radiation are from nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 50s, 60s and 70s, resulting in some levels of radiation in the water.

But those levels are not enough to cause concern, says Starosta.

“The radiation levels we can attribute to Fukushima are essentially not visible,” he says. “What I do see is effects from the weapons tests and natural radiation. That has been there before Fukushima.”

Dr. Erica Frank, professor and Canada Research Chair at the University of British Columbia says she continues to eat seafood caught off the coast of B.C. “I don’t eat seafood caught in Asia,” she says.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1198391/i...ng-a-threat-to-fish-caught-off-the-b-c-coast/

 

[cuttlefish]

Sarosta's been testing around BC for a while. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X13001392

 

[banger17]

does make one think a bit about it though - particularly given the salmon migrating routes, etc.

 

[searun]

All the concern is highly overblown in my opinion. There has been a lot of posts in recent months and every time it's basically someone saying they are concerned, but no hard facts.

 

[KCW]

A lot of misinformation on the net that people believe.

 

[cuttlefish]

More results from tests of albacore tuna, 2010 - 2013. Some will discount the source. http://www.canadianalbacoretuna.com/pdf/2014-Radioactive-web.pdf

 

[Whole in the Water]

The point of the article in the first post is two fold. (1) this is a new source of radioactivity is a fairly large amount (the Japanese have been accused of not being honest about how much has actually been leaked) so previous background tests don't really mean much. (2) The article talks about bioaccumulation in various life forms over time so current testing results again will not tell us much. We will only know the full impact over time. Hopefully it is not that great. In the meantime testing of species that humans eat should be done to ensure the effects of bioaccumulation don't make food sources dangerous to human heath.

 

[cuttlefish]

I don't disagree, it is new source which is a bad thing. Not as big as Chernobyl but not good. Current tests do provide background levels which are good things. They provide levels to compare future test results and may help to better understand bioaccumulation.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-c-shore-says-researcher-jay-cullen-1.2990947

Fukushima nuclear pollution hasn't hit B.C. shore, says researcher Jay Cullen
Cullen expects nuclear pollution from Fukushima will hit B.C.'s beaches eventually
By Daybreak North, CBC News Posted: Mar 11, 2015 3:33 PM PT Last Updated: Mar 11, 2015 3:33 PM PT

Ocean currents act as a conveyor, carrying debris and radiation-contaminated water from Japan towards North America. (NOAA)

Fukushima radiation hasn't hit B.C. shore 5:32 http://www.cbc.ca/news/fukushima-radiation-hasn-t-hit-b-c-shore-1.2990979

External Links
How Radioactive is Our Ocean? http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

Four years after a massive earthquake struck Japan, creating a nuclear disaster in Fukushima, research shows nuclear pollution is making its way towards B.C., but isn't affecting fish.

"According to all the measurements that we've made thus far, and with our partner Health Canada who have been making measurements of fish since 2001, we've yet to detect that marker isotope for fish caught along the coast," Jay Cullen, a University of Victoria professor, told Daybreak North's Carolina de Ryk.

Members of a volunteer group search for clues to the whereabouts of people missing four years after the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Namie town, near Tokyo Electric Power Co's tsunami-crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, on March 11, 2015.
1 of 13
The earthquake that struck off the coast of the Tohoku region in northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011, set off a monster wave, up to seven metres high, that crashed over the coast, causing massive damage.

The seawater from the tsunami breached the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, disabling its cooling system, causing a nuclear meltdown that the country is still trying to clean up. Altogether, the disaster killed 19,000 people and displaced more than 300,000.

Cullen, who leads a network to monitor the impact of the nuclear pollution caused by the disaster, said his team is looking for two specific cesium isotopes released from Fukushima.

"As early as 2012 about 1,500 kilometres offshore, and in 2014 we were detecting that contamination — fingerprint element that could only come from Fukushima on the continental shelf of British Columbia," he said.

The team he works with is also analyzing samples sent in by residents along B.C.'s coast, which he said haven't turned up any trace of Fukushima radiation.

He expects the nuclear pollution will hit B.C.'s beaches eventually, and he said researchers like himself will continue to monitor the impact that will have.

To hear the full interview with Jay Cullen, click the audio labelled: Fukushima radiation hasn't hit B.C. shore.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.icontact-archive.com/gkR_CVldWco6A5tPY8T0Fg2iv12W9pdj?w=4

In an effort to communicate results in a timely manner, Fukushima InFORM will be sending out a ~monthly e-newsletter that will cover the most recent results from our citizen science monitoring network along the coast of British Columbia. In addition to our offshore seawater sampling program and monitoring of marine organisms in collaboration with partners Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Health Canada we are collecting coastal seawater samples from fourteen communities up and down the BC coast. Each sample is collected by a citizen scientist volunteer coordinator and processed and analyzed by the Fukushima InFORM team at the University of Victoria and their partners across Canada and the US.

http://i.imgur.com/UyjXAom.png

Recent Monitoring Results
Forty water samples have been collected between October 2014 and March 2015 from 13 communities along the British Columbia coast. Results from 19 samples are currently available. The remaining are currently in process with results expected in the near future. To date, no coastal samples have detectable (detection limit ~0.2 Bq m-3) levels of 134Cs, the radionuclide that is the fingerprint of Fukushima derived radiation due to its short half life (~2 years). All coastal samples have measureable levels of 137Cs (half life ~30 years), that is likely present because of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing that happened in the 1950s and 1960s and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. For the most up to date results, follow us on social media (Facebook or Twitter: @FukushimaInFORM) or check out our blog.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Even though it could be overblown..This threat is real, and from reading these it didn't give me comfort... Only time will tell..

 

[Califbill]

I do not understand how they state the debris and radiation has not reached BC shores. 2013, a huge Japanese dock from the tsunami washed ashore in Oregon.

 

[Clint r]

Fear? Can you imagine what would happen if there was a dangerous amount of radiation leaking into the ocean. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe the Governments of the world would keep something like that from getting out to prevent widespread panic. Kind of like a "what you don't know can't hurt you" type of thing.

 

[finaddict]

Fear? Can you imagine what would happen if there was a dangerous amount of radiation leaking into the ocean. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe the Governments of the world would keep something like that from getting out to prevent widespread panic. Kind of like a "what you don't know can't hurt you" type of thing.

Clint, Wouldn't that be a conspiracy theory? heh heh heh

 

[seadna]

Here's a copy and paste I made from a post in 2013 on a different web forum.

The ocean's a big place. One of the biggest problems with radioactivity is when it is concentrated in one area (like Fukushima). Right now there are about 330,000 tonnes of contaminated water stored at the Tepco plant. The estimated size of the ocean (all the ocean water including the Atlantic) is about 1.3 x 10^18 tonnes (e.g. 1.3 followed by 18 zeros). If ALL of the Tepco water could be equally diluted into the entire ocean, the radiation levels would drop by 330,000/(1.3x10^18) = about 3 trillion fold. Even if we assume only 1/1 millionth of the ocean dilutes ALL of the Tepco water, that would be a 3 million fold dilution. The radiation levels adjacent to the most contaminated tanks are at about 1.8sv - dangerously high as 1sv gives about a 5.5% chance of developing cancer and a few sv over a short period of time are lethal. Now take ALL of that radiation and dilute it 3,000,000 fold and you're down to 0.6usv (micro-seivert). That would be the dose if ALL of the water at Tepco was diluted by 3 million-fold which is 1/1millionth of the total ocean volume. Note 1rem = 0.01sv. So, 0.6usv =60urem = 0.06mrem.

To put that in perspective, the average dose of radiation we receive in a year is around 620mrem most of which comes from radon in the air. If you sleep next to your spouse for about 8hrs/day, you get 2mrem from that. So bottom line, I'm not worried about the radiation leaking in Japan resulting in meaningful contamination on our coast.

 

[GLG]

http://radwatch.berkeley.edu/salmon

Bottom line is don't eat bananas as there is more nasty radiation in it then there is in salmon. (sarcasm)
One thing we should remember is that life evolved on this planet with radiation. We have built in mechanism to repair the damage caused by it as long as it is in small doses.

 

[shuswap]

Here's a copy and paste I made from a post in 2013 on a different web forum.

The ocean's a big place. One of the biggest problems with radioactivity is when it is concentrated in one area (like Fukushima). Right now there are about 330,000 tonnes of contaminated water stored at the Tepco plant. The estimated size of the ocean (all the ocean water including the Atlantic) is about 1.3 x 10^18 tonnes (e.g. 1.3 followed by 18 zeros). If ALL of the Tepco water could be equally diluted into the entire ocean, the radiation levels would drop by 330,000/(1.3x10^18) = about 3 trillion fold. Even if we assume only 1/1 millionth of the ocean dilutes ALL of the Tepco water, that would be a 3 million fold dilution. The radiation levels adjacent to the most contaminated tanks are at about 1.8sv - dangerously high as 1sv gives about a 5.5% chance of developing cancer and a few sv over a short period of time are lethal. Now take ALL of that radiation and dilute it 3,000,000 fold and you're down to 0.6usv (micro-seivert). That would be the dose if ALL of the water at Tepco was diluted by 3 million-fold which is 1/1millionth of the total ocean volume. Note 1rem = 0.01sv. So, 0.6usv =60urem = 0.06mrem.

To put that in perspective, the average dose of radiation we receive in a year is around 620mrem most of which comes from radon in the air. If you sleep next to your spouse for about 8hrs/day, you get 2mrem from that. So bottom line, I'm not worried about the radiation leaking in Japan resulting in meaningful contamination on our coast.

I agree. Thanks

 

[agentaqua]

I agree with the comments on low levels of radioactivity/radionucleotides from the Fukushima incident so far.

The only red flag (or maybe light pink) I would raise would be 1 constituent by product radionucleotide - Cesium 137 or 137Cs. It has a half life of ~30 years. So - even given the time it takes Fukushima contamination to spread across the Pacific - there is little decrease in radioactivity of the Cs137 particles compared to the other radionucleotides. There is however - substantial dilution - our friend. That's the one contaminant I would keep my eyes on, especially if it gets bioaccumulated up the food chain - in organisms such as tuna - which also feed on both sides of the Pacific.

Some websites on Cs137:
http://kelpwatch.berkeley.edu/why-cesium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034004/article
http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2004/49/smw-10219.pdf
http://fukushimainform.ca/2014/09/1...es-in-pacific-albacore-tuna-off-the-us-coast/
http://www.e3s-conferences.org/arti...3sconf_ichm13_32001/e3sconf_ichm13_32001.html
http://www.cdt.ch/files/docs/bf82f29f68a2e493178eb4403f4323ad.pdf

AND this one, especially:

http://micheli.stanford.edu/pdf/Madiganetal_PNAS_2012.pdf
Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California
Daniel J. Madigana,1, Zofia Baumannb, and Nicholas S. Fisherb
aHopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA 93950; and
bSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook,
NY 11794
Edited by Karl K. Turekian, Yale University, North Haven, CT, and approved April 25, 2012 (received for review March 22, 2012)
ABSTRACT:
The Fukushima Dai-ichi release of radionuclides into ocean waters caused significant local and global concern regarding the spread of radioactive material. We report unequivocal evidence that Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, transported Fukushima-derived radionuclides across the entire North Pacific Ocean. We measured γ-emitting radionuclides in California-caught tunas and found 134Cs (4.0 ± 1.4 Bq kg−1) and elevated 137Cs (6.3 ± 1.5 Bq kg−1) in 15 Pacific bluefin tuna sampled in August 2011. We found no 134Cs and background concentrations (∼1 Bq kg−1) of 137Cs in pre-Fukushima Bluefin and post-Fukushima yellowfin tunas, ruling out elevated radiocesium uptake before 2011 or in Californiawaters post-Fukushima.

These findings indicate that Pacific bluefin tuna can rapidly transport radionuclides from a point source in Japan to distant ecoregions and demonstrate the importance of migratory animals as transport vectors of radionuclides. Other large, highly migratory marine animals make extensive use of waters around Japan, and these animals may also be transport vectors of Fukushima-derived radionuclides to distant regions of the North and South Pacific Oceans. These results reveal tools to trace migration origin (using the presence of 134Cs) and potentially migration timing (using 134Cs:137Cs ratios) in highly migratory marine species in the Pacific Ocean.